series, a look at a recent article on alternatives to locking up juvenile offenders. plus your phone calls facebook comments and tweets. ♪ "king vs burwell" host: good morning. "wall street journal" from page. no more promises. we will learn more from the chairman of the federal reserve later this afternoon. look for coverage on c-span.org. the house gop unveiled their budget blueprint promising to cut 5.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. we will begin with your thoughts

on the republican proposal. you can also send us a tweet or go to facebook.com/cpsnspan. we will get your thoughts here in just a minute. i want to begin with the chairman of the budget committee , republican from georgia. yesterday holding a news conference. [video clip] >> it gets to balance within 10 years without raising tax. we responsibly lay out a plan for a healthy economy. one that opens the doors for people will, not subjects into the ditch to washington, d.c.. we say in strength and medicare.

we recognize the imperative of providing for our military men and women and their families. of budget spent more on national defense that the president. we do so in a responsible way that lays out a path to adjust the ongoing consent of the military so they are better able to plan and prepare for challenges in the future. host: tom price outlining what he says is in this budget proposal for the next 10 years. the accident at the white house yesterday with meeting with prime minister of ireland. during the photo opportunity here is what he had to say about the republican budget. president obama: it is not a

budget that reflects the future or is going to help ensure that middle-class families are going to maintain security and stability. people trying to get into the middle class will have the runs on the ladder to get into the middle class. we are going to have a robust debate. my hope is that ultimately we can find some compromises where together we are financing the education, research, training, building of roads and bridges imports -- and ports, railways all the things we need to put people back to work and ensure the incredible momentum our economy has built will continue for future generations. host: president obama disagreeing with the republicans put forth. look at the front page of the

washington times." obamacare cuts 5'5" trillion from venting. they praise the attempt. they are using possible cuts to do they will do everything they can to there. stop the budget. they say it hurt the poor that event on government assistance. -- host: larry in mississippi, democratic caller. you are up. what do you think about what the republicans have put forth? caller: they are protecting big business and the rich.

they are taxing the middle class and poor. they are going after these snap program again. it know it surprised. have a nice day. host: we want to hear from you what you make of the president's proposal. take a look at what some of the papers have highlighted today of this budget proposal. $1 trillion in cuts to entitlement programs. they are unspecified in this budget. 1 trillion and cut to domestic programs like food stamps and welfare. a full repeal of the affordable care act. six is a $13 billion into the venting. and they put $90 billion for emergency war spending. the president wanted to spend 51 billion dollars. republicans increased it by

another $40 billion during the house gop budget would also repeal some of the dodd frank provisions privatize fannie mae and freddie mac and have a full repeal of the affordable care act. those are some of the provisions in it. this is the house version of the republican agenda. the senate, now being controlled by republicans, will have their own budget proposal likely not to include as deep the cuts. we will hear more as house republicans and senate republicans go to work up their bills this week. plans to get them on the floor in the house incident the week after that. after they return after a two week break in april they will try to come together on these two bills was some sort of agreement.

good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. when you listen to the comments they make it sound like it is the government jobs to directly raise the middle class through a direct spending and intervention, building railroads . that is the model. we do not work that way. the government job is to provide a fertile economic climate so that private industry can do those things. and create jobs in the process while getting a profit for people who invest in the endeavors to they have got a complete phobia style a model going on. it does not work.

it is time the american public gets a grip on that. it is not come from a direct government intervention. host: you are going to learn more about what the president has to say on this budget when later today he travels to cleveland. he will be having a townhall meeting there and laying out his differences with what the republicans are proposing compared to what he proposed for the 2006 -- 2016 budget earlier this year. this is from the wall street journal. budgets are blueprints not spending bills. --

host: democratic caller. caller: the president should say this budget is dead on arrival. this is the reason why people have to vote in these elections. if you do not vote, this gives them the idea that it is ok for them to come up with these ideas. this is not what the people want. this is what happens when people don't vote in elections and allow other people to take over. there is no way this budget makes any sense. host: all right. we have one republican and now arthur democrat. republican start calling and as well. do you like what the republicans are putting forward? some republicans believe what

the leadership has endorsed here is gimmicks. tim in maine democrat. caller: good morning. i hope you are well. i get such a kick out of this then that comes out of washington. characterizing this as a budget opportunity. what does that mean, we're going to throw the old people and disadvantaged out and given the opportunity to fight the wolves? the gentleman before me was absolutely correct. the blood going to have to get out of their recliners -- the people are going to have to get out of their recliners and go out and vote on election day. thank you. that is all i have to say. host: republican, north carolina. hi. go ahead. share your thoughts. caller: we can balance this budget. we can have plenty of money left to run our country with. all we've got to do is tax this

money that they sent overseas. they've got billions over there. now these companies were they do not pay the stopck holders that is a way they are within their government off and the taxpayer off. if we would have anyone in washington run washington, they would pass it at 12:00 today and it would go into law and stood a thing -- this is a think but off. host: republican. go ahead. caller: i think it is a good budget. the military has to be strong. we have to fight isis and destroy them. i hope that it goes through. host: before you leave, are you

still there? caller: yes. host: let me bounces off of you. johnson wiseman announcing that the plan contains more than $1 trillion in savings from unspecified cut like food stamps and welfare. -- what do you make of this? some are calling this a gimmick. caller: it is going to hurt some people. but, do you know what? we needed for our country. so. host: people are saying and reporters are saying the president is going to demand that were every dollar increase

in defense spending that there is a dollar increase in the spending. she republicans go along with that? i would like to see domestic spending also. our roads are bad. they will need a lot of work done. everybody needs jobs. i have to go along with what they say. we need this budget. we need it. it might hurt some will. others it won't. thank you for letting me speak. host: back to the new york times. this budget achieves balance only by counting 147 billion and dynamic economic growth spurred by the policies of the budget itself. they would produce a projected

macro economic impact .

caller: good morning. all these people not voting? how could anybody vote i don't have my volume on. i can hear you. host: you are on. caller: i do not understand how people are crying or not voting . it is so insane. you are out of control. you continue to let people [yelling] it's insane! host: charles, republican. what do you make? caller: i watched these then. i have been watching all the hearings. the democrats claiming that the wars needed to be paid for in

that we should have a special fund for it. why should we not have a special bond forl fund for it? we put the republicans in charge of the senate and the house because the democrats were running it into the ground. face it --- they spent for domestic spending. now it is time to put it back in the military. i'm not a war monger or a redneck or a racist. just like every democrat wants to labe; the republicans asked i'm none of those. i do believe in our military and right now that is what is happening in the world. what are we going to do? let the terrorists take over the united states?

it give me a break. host: delaware, democrat caller. what are your thoughts? caller: thank you for c-span. i think it was saving a lot of trouble if mcconnell and boehner would just stop all this foolishness now. they never seem to be able to do anything against the president. whenever it is asked, they eventually ask we us -- they eventually acquiesced. i does have little make any difference. they should just go ahead and approve whatever it is that the president was as far as the budget is concerned. host: why do you say that? caller: it's a waste of time. they have proven already that they cannot seem to do any and so far as sporting executive wishes. i do not see it making any sense

for them to try to go against this president. host: you might be interested in this piece. the gop budget sparks a fight between deficits and defense. those two leaders have made steady governance with their main political goal of the year. without a lending resolution it will be particularly unsteady and increase the possibility of a small-scale shutdown. take a look at the reaction from capitol hill on twitter.

the leader for the democrats nancy pelosi, the gop budget will make it harder to live the american dream. it is time to invest in hard-working emily's. another democrat says "gop budget claims our economy is harmed by democratic policies, but that show different. trickle-down policies have failed." from the republicans, bigger of the house "for 50 three of the last 60 years, the federal government has more than it has taken in --it is unacceptable>" >" ." the republican from arizona saying that he will not support

putting extra money for the pentagon in the emergency fund, not through the regular budget. one last tweet from bradley byrne saying "i reject the notion that you have to the either a budget hawk or a defense hawk. i am both. it is about prioritizing our nation's needs. dan. good morning. what you think? caller: hopefully you're having a great day. i want to touch something outside the line for a second. it coordinates with the budget. the state budget in new york here has raised $8 billion. our member 1998 it was $60 billion.

the federal government and the budgets produced by the federal government are just exaggerated. the waste that we spend on bureaucrats that run the federal government, basically they are looking for monies that can run the federal government but they basically turn all the expenses back over to the states and then the state end up knocking the general public from the county in the whole in regards to other taxes. it is a catch 22. what we really need to do is analyze what our government is really doing for us. start saving money on many of the programs that are duplicated so many times over. this budget even though the federal budget for military to be increased based on the jobs

we have, we have tons of ways on ways that could save you go toward the military. host: what do you make of unspecified cut the welfare programs, food stamp programs? one. republicans going that route? caller: i think there is waste of both of the programs. i honestly can tell you that if many people investigate just their local areas and look at their local areas, they will find fraud and abuse happens everywhere. just read your local newspapers. find out what is going on here. the number of people that are on social security that you not belong on social security, the people on welfare that are claiming disability, they are playing on golf or says and claiming 90% disability. there is a lot of people out

there that have used the system. we need to identify who they are. host: the former secretary tweeted about the budget yesterday. "budgets reflect a ortiz treated they should help families get ahead." hillary clinton making headlines of this morning. clinton never signed off on turning over has a fight information. if the speaker of the house once a third party intervention to look at this, saying the third party needs to take control of her e-mail server in order to clear of remaining questions.

in other news, here is the washington post piece about the resignation of aaron schock, republican of illinois. he decided abruptly to step down yesterday after politico had more reap warding on how -- more reporting on how he was spending money. he charged the government for mileage on an suv, more mileage than he actually used. he had raised more than $69 for his campaign. he also campaigned across the country for colleagues in

competitive races.

[indiscernible] host: paul and clearin clearfield. what do you think? caller: please excuse my voice. we need a balance the budget. we cannot do it in one sweep. that needs to be broken down until we can sit down as a unit that is democrat and republican, etc, and form a budget that both of us can support. or we will never get there. the defense department has raised but we have taken too much out of our head start etc or we are going to create more problems than we solve. we have to sit down. i need that. before as we write the proposed

budget, not after. i will sometime in the near future that can be done. i do not know. i am a little concerned that if it will ever be done. i thank you so very much force is in. host: jim and florida republican. hi. caller: we are missing the whole point about the budget. need to balance the budget. we need to reduce the deficit. the only way to reduce the deficit is by growing the economy. you cannot have 1% or 2% gross gdp over the next couple of years. even eat 6% or 7% or 8%. we have to make sacrifices. europe is in debt to china is going into debt. the world has to deal with debt first. host: where did the american people make sacrifices?

caller: we all have to cut back. we went out of the recession in 2007/2008 without really tackling any of the real problems. nobody really made any sacrifices then appeared in there was a budget bipartisan committee back then. nobody paid attention to that committee. they just went on spending money. nobody is really tackling the debt. host: what about entitlement programs? medicare? caller: everybody has to make sacrifices. but people are taking us is to work two to three jobs. they should not be not out. we need to grow the economy. get better jobs for them. host: do you agree with

republicans cutting domestic programs? caller: like i said, i do not believe in people i see writing the buses -- rdiiding the buses and working two or three jobs, i do not believe having their income cut. there are other ways you can raise money. we have to grow the economy. host: all right. we're going to get back to more of your phone calls here this morning on the budget, the budget cuts, republicans proposing 5.5 billion dollars in budget cuts over the next 10 years in spending. back to the calls here. verse joining us on the phone is michael wilner who is the washington bureau cheap. from what we know, it looks like the prime minister has did his

rival. can you fix explained by how much? mr. michael wilner: it was a shocking results this morning. everyone woke up to a large margin of six seats in the parliament. 's main opposition party. the polls showed overnight that they had been tied. it was affairs present result. host: what are you saying about how the prime minister was able to turn this around? mr. michael wilner: right. well.

in the very last days of this collection, the prime minister short of the right of his electorate effectively with statements such as his rejection of a palestinian state which is a reversal of his position at the 2009 which was embracing a palestinian state that was demilitarized. he also effectively warned the arab population within israel were voting in droves and it would compromise effectively the balance of power in parliament. he warned his supporters that they had to come out and basically get out to vote. host: how does it work in

israel? mr. michael wilner: sure. it is a complicated parliamentary sentence. there are main parties. they can consolidate power over the last several elections. there is the left party which is the union. there is the right party. the third-largest party right now is the air joint list. -- arab joint list and there are satellite parties around them. to build a coalition that forms the government, you need 62 seats. iby far, netanyahu is best poised to form the coalition. host: what does this mean for u.s. wash israeli relations and the iran talks.

you are in switzerland for the negotiations. mr. michael wilner: right. the run iran talks, israel is not a party to these talks. they will proceed regardless of who is elected to run the next government in israel. in terms of u.s./israel relations, netanyahu ran on it cap form -- on a platform which included harsh criticism of what is going on here in switzerland. they are quite close to a deal make no mistake. the atmosphere here is certainly optimistic if you were of the position that a deal was a good idea. effectively, we continue the status quo which is a deep disagreement between the prime minister who will retain power

and the president who will be in power for the next two years. host: did his speech before a joint meeting of congress help in this election? mr. michael wilner: you know, polling suggested there was a slight bump just after the speech which ultimately subsided. as we have seen overnight, polling in israel is not particularly reliable. it suggested that it did not actually help him in the end. that said, netanyahu is the type of leader who would make this sort of speech. the speech reinforced what people knew netanyahu to be, which is a leader who was willing to stand up to the international community, who is willing to stand up to the american president on security

matters. host: he reported that a deal is close in these enron negotiations you are in switzerland. 90% of the technology does have been agreed to. what do you know? mr. michael wilner: we are getting mixed messages from different officials. the iranian or in minister told the press early this morning that that 90% number is quite accurate. there are some technical details on which progress has in made. some technical details on which less progress has been made. the issue here is that the negotiation is very complicated. you have a major break through on one particular issue and so on a long way to go. at this point, it does not seem at we will get a deal on the next two days.

it does seem as if we will get a deal by the end of the month. host: michael wilner, we appreciate your time. thank you. mr. michael wilner: absolutely. host: now back to all of your calls. on the budget proposal loretto democratic color. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i have a problem with this budget cut. when there are 23 members of congress receiving subsidies with stephen fincher leading aipac, they should be able to take care of their own financial needs and quit cutting programs for the poor people that need to eat and live. everybody is not fortunate.

they are fortunate. they should be ashamed of themselves. host: john in ohio. a democratic holler. what do you make of this budget pozo? caller: it stuns me how our country does not know how powerful the are. we want to spend all this money on war on isis and al qaeda. that money is really being spent to pad the 1%'s pocket. they have contracting companies. they picked these wars. these are really easy. i do not understand what people do not realize this money is going from us to then to the wars. host: independent caller. you're on the air. caller: how are you? i would like to know if there is

still funding special forces overseas, action money going into that? why hasn't that been cut? people are freezing to death. why are we concentrating on war? host: we're going to be talking with a republican of new jersey first. then a wisconsin democrat marco can. with members of the budget committee. other news this morning, the sec chairman was testifying. the headlines this morning, gop says obama a metals in the net neutrality decision. see's fcc caving to pressure from the white house. another headline this morning

from the washington post "republican say the fcc's ig is looking into the net neutrality ruling on the of." -- of the fcc." >> the process of the role making was one of the most expensive processes they have ever run. we heard from startups. we heard from isps. we heard from a series of public roundtable. 750 x parties. we heard from the administration. i would like to be clear. there are no secret instructions from the white house.

i did not feel obligated and she followed the presidents recommendation. i did feel obligated to treated with the recent that that it deserves just as i had treated the proof and cons from 140 senators and representatives. we heard from 4 million americans. we listened and learned throughout this entire process. we made our decision based on a tremendous public records. host: democrat testifying on the house side yesterday. he will be on the other side of capitol hill before it the committee. we will have coverage of that life at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

also coming up, republicans trying to pass a human trafficking bill. it includes an abortion provision. they held up this not once but twice. that is being tied to the nomination of loretto lynch. abortion politics stalls the vote. they say the justice for victims of trafficking act would increase the nazis for those convicted of trafficking.

>> this morning was a sad day for the united states senate when the bill designed to help the children sex traffic to goes down because the advocacy of a group that want to turn this into an abortion debate. and to change the settled law -- subtle law of the last 39 years.

as i said before the vote, i really that this is a time when the very soul of the united states senate is the intestate. are we going to actually break out of the shackles that we seem to be bound by to say we're going to turn every issue no matter how sensitive and turn into a political issue that divides his? i would have thought that of all the topic where there would be bipartisan consensus it would be combating the crime of human trafficking. host: the senator from texas there, senator john cornyn, talking about this trafficking bill. hillary clinton tweeted this on monday openy. the editorial board of the washington times says this is an

opportunity for mitch on oh. he says the judiciary committee needs to be taken a second look at loretto lynch and it is because of her background interacts during and experience. if your engine and --you are interested in following the debate, go to the website. democratic called her. you're on the air. what you make of the republican budget? caller: if you go to downtown los angeles you see thousand americans and black folks laying in the streets, no housing or resources. if you should these illegal aliens home, mexican, canadian, european korean, folks from israel. it should and back to where they came from. stop letting the children come into this country and letting others come in this country and not have the adequate resource

raise to take care of our own citizens. host: you think all the financial problems are due to illegal immigration? caller: a good part of it. there is no excuse. it causes two different problems. they take the low end housing and low and jobs. they will work below the labor level. they are tax takers, not interpreters. if they are legal -- illegal economic them pay. host: what about large entitlement programs? caller: if we can get a handle on getting good americans back to work with can balance this budget. host: ray in missouri. independent caller. caller: i think they need to do something about the republican spending all this money. they are the ones that are talking about the makers and take yours. it is a bunch of craft. i really do.

host: we're going to continue the conversation after this rate. we will begin with a republican of new jersey about the house in the gop budget priorities and also monetary policy in the country. later, representative mark ok pocan will be here as well. first i want to show this headline from "usa today." there it is on our website. we cover this on capitol hill yesterday. when the secret service chief testified yesterday he told the committee that he was in the dark --

here is a little bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> the first president and family are safe. we moved these individuals to nonsupervisory spirit rather than a ministry to leave or they are getting paid for no work. we can so get work out of them. in a different capacity. >> they're still getting paid. no reduction in pay. i am sure they are paying a penalty right now. >> unfortunately this is the last in a long line of episodes somewhat similar, drinking

carousing, on and off duty. this agency has suffered last few years. it is not working right. we've got to have some changes. you have to be the one that makes the changes. i do not sense of this moment that you have the determination to make that happen. represents the clancy: there is an element within our agency that does coke with the stresses that many of you have mentioned today by using alcohol. there is no question. we also have other elements that go a different route. his son to exercise or religion or their families. we do have an element that goes to outlaw.

three or four weeks ago we kicked off an initiative to look at these stresses. there's no excuse for the actions to her has to be self discipline and accountability. you got to find a way to help some of these people that are going toward alcohol to solve the this as a coping mechanism. representative roger: i'm more worried about the president of united eight in his protecting him from harm. if we have special agents on the ground at night in the white house ramming a barricade drunk, it seems to me that the only discipline that you could exert would be caused i the ability of you and your staff to terminate. host: if you missed yesterday's

hearing can go to our website to span.org to watch it there. congressman's scott garrett said on the financial services and let's begin with the proposal. >> most of the viewers know this program. we will bring this through the amendment process. we will all get a chance to vote on the amendments. we carry the votes as this goes along. by the end of the evening today we should have a budget out of the canadian ready to go to before. host: there seems to be tension between republicans over the deficit versus defense.

what do you think about the proposal to put more funding in the budget for the defense, not through the regular budget but through the emergency warfront -- war fund? rep scott garrett: there is always a degree of tension to some extent. these are fundamental issues we are dealing with. fundamental on the one side that deficits in trying to live within our means is part of the republican philosophy here that is why we want to have a budget that does get to balance within the window of the budget. it is on a 10 year basis. we get balanced within that time. it is fundamental as a republican plank. the other is a strong national defense. as long as i have been here, we have been using it as part of

the funding mechanism for our defense. why is that? it is because for as long as i have been here united states has been involved in a military engagement around the world in iraq and afghanistan. we have been out more. this is a way to fund our military operations overseas being involved in war. would we be able to extricate ourselves entirely? that would be it. we look forward to that. host: how to respond to your

republican friends is obviously an end it to run around basic western? rep scott garrett: it is a mechanism to abide by these lester in regard to regular involvement. host: the republican colleagues is none of this like it. it is a growing gimmick. rep scott garrett: what we are trying to do here, it is no longer paul ryan. it is tom price. he has done an admiral job of trying to bring these two forces together to keep the number at 73.5 billion dollars as far as what is in there and allow for

some degree of flexibility. to say if you're going to have the flexibility to try to have offsets for that. that is where that position has been. host: reporters are speculating that it will be difficult or republican leadership in the house and senate to come together on some sort of compromised bill and that republicans will be reluctant to sit towards these domestics spending and to do this run around sequester and put more money in defense spending. rep scott garrett: is it going to be difficult to move a bill through the house? it is always difficult to move a bill through the house and senate. host: now you have republican majority. rep scott garrett: we have seen me of having it in time. at the end of the day, i believe that republicans will be able to get a bill out of the committee out of the house, will be able to get it out of the senate. i believe we will be able to

come together and one way or another come up with a budget that is a budget for this country. that will be a first during the whole term of this administration. they were not able to get the first use of that. -- piece of that. they do not even propose a budget for a number of years. we are already miles ahead of where the democrats were when they were in power. that is significant. the american public does ask us to do what we do with the budget . host: this is "the new york times" this morning weighing in on the budget proposal. they say it is a disaster. rep scott garrett: i am surprised. host: i know.

host: do you think that is justified? rep scott garrett: we have tried to do it a family would do. how do we live within our means to make the cut in certain areas amid the expansion -- and maybe expansions and other areas or take the areas they are talking about right now. if you asked the listeners right now how many social welfare type programs are there any distance to try to help the poor and what have you, i wish we could do a poll answer that question out. they might think there is 10 or 20 or 25 or 30. the number i've seen is around 97 federal welfare programs and exist in that existence right now. there is an abundance of them. a lot of time duplicating services and overlapping each other and being inefficient.

you do no good to someone who is poor or unemployed into trying to get out of their conditions to better themselves if you do not provide the dollar to them in a service that actually provide some degree of service. that is where we are right now. with so much duplication, if we could try to target that, that is what the budget does, and we can continue the safety net programs for the people who need it but in a way that actually delivers the services to them. host: let's get to the phone calls. the first is dan in massachusetts, independents. got it. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i spoke to you two or three years ago. rep scott garrett: on this program? caller: yes, on this program.

we were talking about oil futures contracts back in 2008 when they were -- when the prices came way of. then they came way down, fast, which is a strong indication that the markets were messed with. it turns out the banks had all these massive contracts, more oil futures and oil companies had incapacity. rep scott garrett: i almost member the call. caller: you seem to surprise. -- seemed surprised. rep scott garrett: i am vaguely coming back to it. it is hard to break off from three years ago. caller: now what we're looking at, the banks have been using these contracts to help with the price of the oil.

it turns out central banks just recently ahve been able to buy so now we have a central private bank buying oil futures. guest: are you talking about the fed? caller: they are coercing together. we have the central bank in europe. the central bank here. central banks all over the place. they run everything. my question is, we are letting the central bank basically run everything. one other point as far as the defense spending goes. in the mda a, what was rescinded was a law that says the defense department could not use

propaganda against the american people on american soil. this mdaa past. i am wondering what you think with increasing defense spending when the government coercing with the media can legally lie to us and make us believe whatever we want based on your propaganda. host: we have more calls to get to. guest: let me take them somewhat in reverse. i would agree with where i think the caller is going with the mda a and agree there should not be an allowance by the government to be able to use taxpayers money to distort and make opaque what is going on and government and to use that as a propaganda

tool. i am 100% with the caller on that one. with regard to the nda passing with no judicial review, that is true. that is the way our process works. other systems have that before a bill becomes a law that there is some judiciary panel that has to say whether the law is constitutional or not. that is not the way our system was set up. our founders said, elect representatives. a bill becomes a law and goes through congress, the house, the senate. the president signs it. it is after that fact that someone can challenge it in court. it is after the fact that a court can strike something down as unconstitutional. regarding the central bank, he goes from the oil future to the opaqueness of the central banks. i think i agree with where the

caller is going on the central bank. an issue of mine is the transparency. i cannot control the other central banks but we can try to control our central bank which is the fed. i have legislation to try to do that. to make the more transparent. they are pushing back heavily. i will yield to you. host: is your bill to audit the fed? guest: we have bills that would allow for auditing of the fed. we have another bill, the federal reserve accountability and transparency act that would allow for transparency of the way they operate. a little bit on the monetary policy of the equation but also on the regulatory side of what they do because the fed, under

dodd-frank, gives them expansive new powers in the area of regulation which is what this first caller said. they have huge powers and they do. that is something we disagree with and we are trying to rein in. host: this budget unveiled yesterday also includes some provisions to do away with parts of dodd-frank. i want to get more phone calls in and then we will return. joni in fair lawn, new jersey. high joni. joni. caller: i have some questions. do you think that the american people want to see cuts to domestic programs to fund tax cuts to the wealthy? my first question. my second question is, what parts of this budget protect

american jobs rather than provide incentives or companies -- for companies to invest in create jobs overseas when we need to protect jobs here? guest: they go together in some respects. what is in the budget right now is tax reform. i think we can all agree from both sides of the aisle that the current tax code is ridiculous. is a 70,000 pages that no one can understand and do their own taxes anymore because it is so located. best because it is so complicated. what is in the tax code right now does benefit rich over and above the middle class in a number of ways. what we need to do is to get rid of those provisions. there is a lot in our tax code

that grows out of what we call crony capitalism and helps those who have high-powered lobbyists in lobby washington. those things usually help a small segment of the economy and population. we need to get rid of those. at the same time, bring down the overall rates for everybody. what you do there is bring down the rates, get rid of the county capitalism and you get a simpler tax code. that goes to the other question what is in the budget that we can do to create jobs. that is what we want to do. the tax code right now actually discourages job creation. the tax code and a lot of the policies of this administration actually do what the caller and i agree on is bad. it pushes jobs overseas. you have a tax code that says to a business, if you are going to make a decision our tax code

currently says, it basically pushes them over there and discourages them from coming back here with jobs. it also discourages them from taking any profits that they have made in europe, asia or someplace else. discourages them from bringing it back to the united states and create more jobs here. the answer to that is something called repatriation, allowing you if you have a business in europe to bring your money back and start making jobs in the united states. that is something that the republican plan has encouraged for years. the administration has said no to it. i think we are on the same page with what the caller saying. more job creation in the united states. a fair tax code that does not benefit the wealthy but it's fair to the middle class. host: would republicans include in any tax reform what the new york times editorial would like

to include? reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes that benefit the highest income households. guest: that is what i was trying to say. that is exactly what we want to do in the text reform proposal. -- the tax reform proposal. the budget sets out the guidance or the principles of where we want to go. that is a principle, what you just laid out. i guess we're on the same page as the new york times. we want to get rid of all of those extraneous loopholes that benefit only the very wealthy and special interest groups. by doing that, you're able to bring down tax rates for everyone. the next step is to go over to

ways and means committee. they are the tax committee. they would be the ones putting the pen to paper and doing it line by line. the battle here is, when it gets to that point, washington will be flooded with special interest groups. it will be incumbent upon us to push back on them. that is where i stand. host: let's get back to calls. can in california, republican. caller: greetings. i had a couple of questions. one thing that amazes me -- a little background fast. i was a government employee, laid off by aerospace. it was amazing to me that i could not collect unemployment

because i was unemployed in california. the reason why is if you do make $1500 you are disqualified. the benefits -- i have been working in this industry for 30 years. it is interesting to me and listening to the previous callers, shifting money from the defense budget -- i said on the trough for a long time. things that people are saying are not fair or not just, it seems like it is not regulated correctly. as an employee of the government, working for so long and now i cannot get unemployment. it seems there is some breakdown.

go ahead. guest: i am not sure how the california system works as far as that goes. it seems problematic if you are a full-time employee 30 to 40 hours per week that you would qualify under most systems as being employed. i cannot comment on those. the problem for him is not how can he get unemployment benefits. the real problem is how can he get back into the employment market. that is what our main focus this morning post discussion is. -- this morning post discussion is. if there are jobs in the area he is in, let's make sure the those dollars are spent efficiently

and effectively. what can we do to promote job creation in the private sector? let's do that. let's bring some of those jobs back from overseas were a lot of this is going and bring it back to california and other places. host: ken, i'm going back to you. caller: i agree. i enjoyed working for the federal government. i want to look for other opportunities. it is difficult when you are unemployed to become employed again with the constrictions that are placed on me in the state of california. but that is the state of california. i hope that is not the case in other states. host: vincent in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: how are you doing?

host: good morning. caller: i just saw some information last night. the access card. host: vincent, we are not following. let's move on to patrick. caller: i am astonished by the duality of the congressman's comments, particularly when it comes to when the freedom of information act was gutted by ronald reagan, essentially creating an opaque government. there are documents that are coming out like operation gladio which show the actions of the united states government. the cia's action in creating armies.

it is so disturbing what the american people are witnessing. to understand the magnitude of this, all you have to do is look at this. corporate america in media industry is now integrally linked to the military-industrial complex. for the congressman to sit there and to convey that there is some type of movement within the republican party to provide transparency. what every american needs to do is contact the representative and demand a restoration of the freedom of information act which will show the absolute to pray that he of what the american people are witnessing right now especially the war on isis which is a completely manufactured construct and which the american people are going to wake up.

you would think that the american people would wake up when it came to the first gulf war we murdered over one million muslims around the world using the most insidious weapons known command. -- known to man. there is zero opaque this and what we are witnessing. host: we got your point. guest: i agree with him that everyone should be in contact with their own representative to express their feelings. i assume this caller is always in contact with his congressman letting him know what he believes. i would encourage this gentleman to look at my record. each member has their own area of focus. i spend a lot of my time on financial services. i chair the capital markets subcommittee. that is where i spend much of my legislative time. i would encourage this gentleman to take a look at what i've been doing.

what i've been trying to do is to get more openness on the fed side and business side. host: on transparency when it comes to the pet does not just comes the pentagon's budget. the pentagon cannot keep track of the money it spends and then after the republicans unveil a budget yesterday calling on increased caps for the pentagon. here's a story on the front page of the washington post. pentagon loses track of weapons and equipment given to yemen. guest: i bring this up during our so-called closed-door meetings. and then i bring it up in the full meetings and on tv. i have been on the committee for a number of years. every year i bring this up when the defense department comes up and say, how come the dod is the only agency that cannot give us a certified audit for their

agency? a cheer -- each year we push and they push back. it is more than problematic, it is just wrong but they cannot do this. what is also wrong is that when they come in and say here is our list of needs that we have as far as national security and defense needs, i will assume that is all accurate. we have other committees that are specialists in this area. we rely on their expertise in that area. before you get to the bottom line on that, you need to be able to say that you can certify that all the information is accurate. i guess this article is pointing out they have not been able to do it. that is just wrong. host: why give them more money than? guest: that is why we're doing it in the manner we are. we know there is a threshold

number of dollars they will need, regardless of whether the budget -- the audit is certified or not. there's a threshold number. if you want to go beyond that, make sure the authorizing committees go through it with a proverbial fine toothed comb. i wish they would get a finer toothed comb because these things need to be looked at. it does no good to anyone if we are spending one dollar and that dollar does not get to the soldier in the field. host: we'll go to south carolina, john a democrat. caller: good morning. you said you are an individual thinker. i'm going to see. guest: i own my own checking account. caller: we will see.

what you need to do as far as the budget, the postal service takes no taxpayer's much money. take them out of the budget. as a government, we print money? guest: the federal reserve does that. caller: as far as the budget goes, take social security and medicare from under the budget print the money and get that off the table. host: congressman? guest: we could do that and some people assert that the federal reserve does that now. if you took a dollar out of your pocket. you would see on your dollar bill it says federal reserve note, it does not say

u.s. government note. the dollars we have in our pockets are printed by the federal reserve. it would be great for a day or two if the federal reserve simply printed enough money to balance the budget. the $500 billion and pay all the bills. we know what that means tomorrow. there is a whole lot more dollars floating around, the dollar that is in your pocket now is worth less. that means the next day, since your dollars worth less the federal reserve will have to print more money. the next day, your dollars worth less. going to the store to buy a gallon of milk would not be -- i bought a half gallon of milk the other day for $3.99. that would mean it would be a dell is $.99 for a gallon of milk because your dollar would continue to shrink. renting more money is not good. -- printing more money is not

good. host: quantitative easing. guest: trying to provide liquidity. to the marketplace by throwing more money into the marketplace. quantitative easing is a fancy word for it. host: lewis, independent caller. caller: a constituent and a supporter of the contras meant. -- of the congressman. guest: let this color stay on for a long time. -- let this caller stay on for a long time. caller: in the 1950's, my classmates fathers were all in manufacturing. it provided jobs for all skill levels and educational levels. problems we see with problems -- with products coming from china we have got to make an effort to

bring these jobs back to america . i think if we can start doing that, you will see a lot of problems get better. number two, last evening i saw on the news intelligence is saying isis is making inroads into south america. there has never been a more important time to secure this u.s./mexican border than now. god only knows how many of these people have gotten across that border and are in place already waiting to do something. congressman, keep up the good work. guest: border security should be paramount. a nation cannot say it is a sovereign nation if you cannot define where your border is. the caller cites one problem as far as threats to our security. human trafficking is going over

the border all the time as well. a must we can secure the border, we will have problems. the other area as far as manufacturing. we have secretary lew in our financial services committee. he would say the economy is all rosy and everything is coming up roses. it is not. if you look in the paper the day he was testifying, it would say that manufacturing is not going up, it is going down in this country. it has been going down for some period of time. we need to pass the budget that would have reform to the tax code to encourage businesses to stay here. we should also change financial regulations so it does not discourage businesses but actually encourages businesses to stay here. there is a slew of other federal regulations that say to a manufacturer, if you are

deciding if you want to be in the united states or in south america, many of our regulations say go someplace else. with to turn that on its head and say you want to stay here and create those good paying jobs for americans. host: on that threat of isis, we will be covering a hearing today with the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey and ashton carter. they will be up on capitol hill before the house armed services panel, talking about isis strategy and the request for new authority to fight that terrorist group. live coverage 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span three. joseph republican. caller: thank you for taking a phone call. i have a couple of comments and the question. i have been trying to find out why there is a video of harry reid being interviewed and he

states on there that you do not have to pay the income tax is voluntary. i cannot get answers to this question from irs representatives. they can't recite the law that says you have to pay income tax. jfk before he was murdered spoke about secret societies in his last speech. i was wanting to know what that is about. my last question, who owns the federal reserve? it is people in other countries. why do people in other countries run our economy? guest: let me tackle those. first on harry reid and his statement, i did not see it as far as the tax code being

voluntary. the question for the media is to ask senator reid does he pay his taxes or not. i have no other comment because i did not see that. jfk's speech, i also did not see that. talking about secret societies. i guess there are all sorts of different organizations in the united states. this is a free country and you are allowed to form public and private organizations. i'm not sure what he was talking about on that one. the last one, the fed in who owns it. as one of the call is referred to, the fed is an independent agency that was created about 100 years ago. basically to provide liquidity to be financial system in this country when you have a series of bank runs.

i have a lot of problems with the fed, i am just giving history. the fed operates with a board of governors. the fed operates made up of people appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate for the head of the fed. president obama just reconfirmed or reappointed the new chair of the fed, janet yellen. that has to come before congress twice a year. we are trying to satish come before congress -- we are saying they should come before congress more than that. what i am trying to do is say not so fast on your independence . monetary policy and regulation under the constitution is a product of the elected representatives.

we are trying to get more of a rain on that. host: the federal reserve having one of their two day meetings here yesterday. today, they will wrap up and janet yellen will go before the cameras this afternoon and talk a little bit. no more promises. the move could be a test for investors. let's clear-cut interest rate guidance from the fed should lead to more volatility in financial markets. christine lagarde warning tuesday that markets could be heading for a repeat of the 2013 taper tantrum in which interest rates rose around the world. but that considered winding down its bond buying. guest: this might be one point where i agree with the caller. there is just too much reliance by the financial marketplaces on what the fed does and what the

fed chairwoman or chairman does every day instead of looking at actual market fundamentals. the price of oil, so on and so forth. instead of looking at those things, too many people are doing what you just said and looking to see what the chair is saying. their newest gambit, forward guidance. as our committee has pointed out the guidance is not much guidance because it does not always portend to what happens. people respond to what the guidance is. bottom line is there is too much reliance on the fed. a should not be having such a market influence that they have. host: larry, tuscaloosa alabama. caller: good morning. i have some questions in a

comment. my question is pertaining to health insurance. my comment is also pertaining to health insurance as well as the amendment you have attached to this bill for human trafficking. the republicans do away with that amendment and debate the amendment separate than the one that you have with the ag attached to it. i think that is a sly way of turning down the ag appointment by attaching a bill to it. on the health insurance that i have, i noticed republicans -- i have been watching c-span since 1984. this is the worst congress i have ever seen. you all in thirtysomething states, most of them republicans , opt out of the medicaid

department. we have millions of folks out here with no insurance. low income people here in alabama and different states. i would like to know from you if a budget committee -- as a budget committee personnel, what are you going to do to help those that do not have insurance? you gave waivers to the volunteer fire department. you gave a waiver to the business people. you gave a waiver to the working people. how come you can't give a waiver to the low income people? guest: what were those waivers? host: larry? how to deliver -- how did the waivers work? caller: they give an exemption that you would not have to pay a tax to these irs people. right now, people who do not have insurance, whether you are poor or not you are still under the umbrella of the irs where you have to pay the taxes.

you gave a waiver to the bio to your fire departments and different people, how come you can't give a waiver to the low income people? you're cutting back on food stamps. host: congressman, go ahead. guest: i want to make sure that the caller understands what was done in those areas. you would have volunteer fire departments who were considered under the irs code as being paid employees and they were not employees. you have to consider them as employees. in which case, the department would have to provide health insurance. that is not the way the system was designed by the administration. that is something different than what the caller is complaining about. for those individuals who do not

have insurance, he is correct. under this president's plan, you are forced to buy insurance. if you do not, you have to pay a penalty. but, if you fall into the lowest income sector of the economy you would qualify for assistance . you would qualify for medicaid in various states that have expanded into that. if you do not fall into that, you would fall into the categories under what is in the affordable care act, federal government assistance. if you're able to afford it, you have to pay taxes. if you're the lowest area, you have to have it or you will get

some sort of assistance to pay for it. host: victor, republican. caller: i had two questions. the first one is, why do you think congress has a 16% approval rating? the second question is, do you think the budget that you proposed is fair to senior citizens by cutting social security and medicare? guest: i would imagine that the congress has a low approval rating for two reasons. based upon the callers we have seen today, you have a divergence of opinion in america from the left and all the way to the right. if you listen to the callers you can see where they are. congress is a representation of that. we have totally different views on a lot of issues. overall, america has a view of

the congress, you are not getting things done. congress represents your callers in a lot of senses. the second reason why we have a low opinion is because the american public does not necessarily have all the facts on what congress is doing. last caller says we were making cuts to social security. there are no cuts to social security. host: in the budget that was revealed yesterday? guest: that is right. he is watching tv and it sounds from the inflection in his voice that we are doing something wrong by cutting social security . it sounds a key is frustrated with that. there is nothing in the budget that makes cuts to social security. with medicare, we realize that medicare is on an unsustainable path. in the year 2030, medicare will run out of money. all the money that caller has put in over his lifetime will have been spent on him or other

people and by 2030, all that money -- there is not enough money coming in for medicare to pay all the bills so you have to be see -- so you have to see a reduction in benefits. reform has to be made. it have laid out plans to fix it . democrats have never laid out plans. we are more than happy to go to the table and say here is our plan tell us what your plan is and we will come to a compromise. for the six years in this administration, they have never thrown out a proposal. our plan would slow the growth curve on medicare and try to create it to be a system where this caller and other callers would have more flexibility. they could stay in their medicare plan. we will give you the option to go into a slightly different one

area more choices than you currently have right now. the experts say that that will save the government money and make it more sustainable. host: kundera scott garrett, we are all out of time. -- congressman scott garrett, we are all of time. up next we will talk with mark pocan, a member of the budget committee. later, our spotlight continues with the christian science monitor plus recent article on alternatives to locking up juveniles. ♪ >> the c-span cities toward has

partnered with media, to learn about the history and life of columbus georgia. >> inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad. this is an ironclad that was built in columbus during the war. those oval shapes are the gun ports of the jackson. the jackson is armed with six brooke rifles. the particular rifle firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study. the jackson is right here. this is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular

ironclad and to show people there are more than just one or two, there were many. >> watch all of our events on c-span two's book tv. >> isis rears their ugly head and this army is shaky. you cannot undo decades of soviet era stuff with eight years. especially when you told them they would have u.s. advisors with them. we currently have about 10,000 troops in afghanistan. we will draw down to 5000 dear and down to almost zero the rafter that. -- the year after that. that afghan army is going to be shaky without u.s. help. >> this sunday on q&a, daniel

bolger on the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done differently. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. >> washington journal continues. host: conger's remarkable can democrat from wisconsin -- congressman mark polk and democrat from wisconsin. let's get your reaction to what the republicans unveiled yesterday for their blueprints. guest: unfortunately, this is similar to past budgets. i think it is worse than we have seen in the past. it is about working harder for less for hard-working americans. you will be working harder and make it harder to afford the home. harder to have a secure retirement. they are doing it to provide tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. it is a lot of what we've seen

in past budgets, this time with less specificity and less about what those cuts will be. we know those are big cuts that will affect hard-working americans. host: how do you think they are going to be hurting americans and at the same time benefiting wealthier americans? guest: they are cutting health care. over 60 million people would lose access to affordable health care. you will be cutting money to education, research. they do not specify but by the dollars alone you'll have to cut things that affect hard-working americans in order to provide the tax breaks that they also imply they took the target out for the last budget. this time, you have all the specificity you can write on a cocktail that can. they know it is not popular.

the budget is the same thing. it is going to cut all those programs hard-working americans can access for their families and shift those resources to the top folks through tax cuts either by losing tax breaks or by other things that they want to do to a couple this. -- to accomplish this. i think democrats will offer something that talks about how you help hard-working americans get ahead. host: when will you unveil the budget? how'd you go about helping middle-class americans? guest: part of it will be coming out in the next few days. what we do that is important is we provide tax breaks for the middle class. we relate things that can help their pocketbooks to be able to support their families as opposed to the stark contrast

providing tax breaks to the most wealthy. very different framework. we will not provide cuts to things like research and education. the sequester has a stifling effect on so many things we address. it is a different document and i think it is going to bolster those americans who are working so hard to get by day-to-day. host: republicans are trying to control spending with this type of budget. you cannot increase taxes because that hurts economic growth. here is the chairman of the budget committee, tom price talking about the impact of their budget on this economy. [video clip] >> the tax perform we have identified we believe will result in an increase in growth. the congressional budget office has decreased its estimate on growth in this country from 3% four years ago to 2.3% annually

over the next 10 years. the average for the last 40 years has been 3.3% growth. was at 1% difference mean? over $3 trillion in greater revenue to the federal government because of the increase in economic activity. host: your response? guest: there is no specificity in the budget. what they are trying to do is put money into the pockets of the top 1% and hard-working americans will have to make up for that. it is nice rhetoric but i would like to see some reality in their budget and they do not offer anything like that. host: how should the president respond? guest: i think the president put out a strong framework. i think what he has been saying. this is a budget that is going

to cut important priorities to people who are in the middle class. we need to look at that. when you cut health care and those sort of things people rely on, you make it harder for americans to get by. the reality of that is these tax shifts the republicans would do for the most wealthy. host: republicans would also like to increase the budget for the pentagon by using this emergency war funding outside of the regular budget. they want $90 billion in this emergency funding. the president asked for about 51 billion. given the threat of isis and the insecurity in yemen and other places, will democrats go along with giving the pentagon more money to fight these threats? guest: they are doing it through budget gimmicks. rather than addressing the budget cap or saying we should get rid of that, they are doing this and run around what it says.

they might have an amendment to increase that funding to bring in budget hawks to try to get the budget passed next week. this is a plan is half-baked at best. i think the american public deserves to know more detail about what they are going to do. just saying you will put more money to defense and cut those programs that help working families is a mistake. host: this is a headline in the washington times. military chiefs are telling congress you have to lift sequestration cuts. saying, it will take the service time to cover from reduced training and monitor is -- modernization. it will take eight to 10 years to return the health force -- the air force to full wariness -- full readiness. our democrats putting the national security at risk? guest: i was not around when we

did sequestration. no one wanted to make the tough decision so we put this in place. i think it is been a mindless approach toward governing. i think with the president has recommended is getting would of sequestration when it comes to a lot of your nondefense programs but also putting money back in to these programs. sequestration is a bad idea. this budget doubles down on those cuts to education and other programs. i see a lot of problems with this budget of around sequestration and we could do a better job than what is being proposed. host: we will go to mike in ohio, democratic caller. caller: good morning. what i find amazing is the

republicans want to cut social security and medicare. i see it all the time on the news. i see the person standing there saying they want to cut this. not too long ago -- thank god for c-span, there was a gentleman that was talking about this. the republicans can spin this all this will -- spin this all they want, but how can we never hear about the fraud and abuse in the military complex? i have a friend who works in one of these programs. he says you would not believe the things they charge the taxpayers for that you can go down to a local auto store and buy for a third less than what they're paying for. guest: i think what mike is bringing up his priorities. i think most people find social security and medicare to be valuable programs that we offer

to the american people. medicare is ended as we know it in this budget offered. a change to social security is strongly implied. host: scott garrett said social security is not touched in this budget. guest: it is strongly implied they will do changes to it. that is something we all pay into throughout our lives. you have put your own money into the program, you expect to have it later. it should be our promise to america. somehow that is going to be looked at to change. those of the problems we see over and over in this proposal. a lack of recognition for what hard-working families expect to have from the american government. instead, this is a budget that is good to 1% or 2% to the people and bad for the rest of us. host: stephen, independent caller. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i would like to talk about the military budget. i saw one testimony that said that 50% of the marine corps budget is going to be health care costs and retirement. $.50 out of every dollar going to the navy or whatever is ending up paying for health care costs and retirement. these guys did not go in to make millions. they are not in finance. i would like to see what dr. carter will come up with. are you guys going to help him refinance infrastructure? -- and restructure? guest: i do not think anyone is gingrich in the military if you're just serving in the military -- i do not think anyone is getting rich in the military if you're just serving.

we are a labor intensive military and we support those families in every way possible. all the more often when we have to have the conversations about sending people into harm's way, that is a big expense. not just what goes to outside contractors area i think we could trim costs that we have to support those people that serve our country and put their lives at risk by doing that. i am not so concerned about what we provide in pay and benefits to those people. i think we could be better in how we do that. i want to make sure we are being wise with the dollars we spend to make sure those people are properly cared for. host: the pentagon budget will be the topic of a hearing this morning on capitol hill. the house armed services will be hearing from the pentagon chief ashton carter as well as martin dempsey -- general martin dempsey.

randy, independent caller. caller: i have a thought to cut out our spending. how about we cut out g a engineering -- geo engineering? that would be a tremendous help. host: why do you point specifically to that? caller: they are modifying our weather and have been doing it for some time now. i would like to know why we do not have natural weather. host: people complain to all different programs in the budget. guest: it is a question of priorities. for democrats, our priorities have been people who work hard every day and want to be able to do the basic things for opportunities for families. can you send your kids to college? can you make sure you get a secure retirement after a lifetime of work?

those are things we should prioritize. i think the republican budget does the opposite. by cuts that are implied in the budget and tax breaks that will go to the wealthy that are implied in this budget, it is a shift from hard-working americans to the wealthiest folks in this country. somehow assuming that will trickle down on the rest of us. that is proven to be failed policy for economics. i think this budget doubles down on those more than those we've seen in the past. host: mary, an independent. caller: good morning. could you tell me over the years all the money that was borrowed from social security and medicare? how much of that has been paid back? i also would like to know why when i watch the congress there is a handful of people there?

in the real world, you are expected to show up for work on a workday. thank you. guest: let me take the second part first if i can. there are different times on the floor when we are all in committee meetings. you may have a bill being debated. that does not mean everyone is on the floor. we are all on the floor we go to take a vote. physically you have to be there. it depends on what time of the day when we are doing some of these things. i think the concern that i have the most around social security and medicare is that we pay into them through our paychecks. we all have put money into those programs and the promise is that it is available later. we take loans and we have to make sure the integrity of the program is there. my concern is that when you change medicare as we know it you are taking away that money you put in into some risky schemes that might be good for big banks and people who invest in that but not for people who

get those benefits who count on those. the fact that once again they are saying we have to fix social security, this is one of the most popular programs we put together for government. it is a promise to people who pay into it. i think anything that is going to risk-taking way those benefits is a bad idea. i think the caller would agree with that. host: hampton virginia. susan, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm wondering when congress is going to get serious about legal immigration. i read an article. a woman that worked at con and for 20 years had to train her replacement and they held her severance pay. one morning, i was listening to the show and a woman had overstayed her visa and was working at boeing in washington state. government tells us we need these workers because they take

jobs that we do not want but i can't believe these are jobs that the american people don't want. guest: if i can take it a little bit broader, immigration reform. the senate passed an immigration reform proposal that while it may not be exactly as i would write it, was a strong compromise the dealt with having extra security at our borders and also a path to citizenship for those people that are currently here and have been for quite a while. i think congress needs to tackle that. we have not as the house of representatives been willing to get a real meaningful vote. that is part of why the president has moved ahead and does things because of the vacuum of leadership. this is something worthy of debate. the senate did it in the last session but the house is not done our job. if we going to get something

done in this area, we need to do the heavy lifting. because of the small number of people in congress, the tale that seems to whack the dog, we are not getting things done that need to get done. -- seems to wag the dog, we are not getting things done that need to get done. caller: i never voted parties between kennedy and obama until i saw with the republicans did. what the republicans did to obama, i'm so ashamed of my fellow democrats. i am a solid democrat now. my neighbors or my friends, i cannot convince them how important it was. i am a low income senior living on very low social security. i want to know what the democrats can do, being in the minority now, to combat this

evil which is what i call republicans now. they proved it to me without a doubt. i live on medicare and medicaid. that is the only medical treatment i can afford. if they would help -- if they do not help pay for it, i cannot get it. i'm 74 years old and disabled. i want to know what democrats can do now to help us not let this evil take over our lives. republicans do not care. host: sorry caller. i thought you're done with your point. guest: i think what you are saying is what we hear from so many americans. my mother is 86 and she gets $1148 a month in social security. she has gone through her savings in the last 20 years. she worked until she was 70 in order to get by.

this is the reality. the promise is when you put your money -- when you get your payroll, that money goes aside for use of you have that retirement income. to take away that money from someone who is a low income senior is really wrong. especially when we are trying to do this to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% and take money away from people who are barely getting by who worked hard all their lives. democrats can fight like hell. we can raise the issue about what republicans are trying to do. the fact that these cuts would be disastrous to low income seniors. that is what i'm going to caller: thank you for taking my call. congressman, thank you. guest: thank you. caller: i think this country has

twp problems. i am a republican. i am conservative. whatever that means. it is the democratic and republican parties that are the biggest problems of this country. you guys can't do nothing. i would never let any of you guys run my business because he would run it to the ground. we have a country $18 trillion in debt. $120 trillion of unfunded debt. $120 trillion. it is not even conscience able. income inequality is caused by the government. not rich people, not corporations. the cost of living has gone up, while the dollar is being borrowed unto oblivion. you guys are the guys doing this. there is no responsibility. it is ridiculous. ok, raised the minimum wage. find. so you can tax me more.

that dollar or two dollars is not going to help me pay my bills. guest: a couple of things. if we raise the minimum wage, nothing comes out of your taxes for that. you would put more money back into the economy because someone who is making minimum wage is more likely to spend that at a restaurant or movie theater. that helps create jobs. if the minimum wage was kept up to where we were in the late 1960's -- that is one thing. i do agree with the caller. it does seem like the topline news from washington is that we all hate each other and all we do is fight. from the people that i know in congress, most democrats and republicans want to get something done. we have to compromise. we have to get to know each other. we have to find out what we have in common and move forward. i see a real problem and that 40

or 50 people largely from the tea party element are the tail that wakes the dog. every time they say no sometimes speaker boehner allows that tail to wag the dog. the fact that the republican party under the leadership of speaker boehner and that 40 or 50 people call the shots rather than letting us do what we used to do, which was able to figure out how to compromise and get things done has done a disservice to the public. that is a large part of the problem. i hear it almost every day out of my district. host: there are reports that the speaker of the house and the minority leader nancy pelosi have come together on a proposal to address medicare. explain what this would do. guest: it is a concern that if anything provides a reduced benefit for medicaid, we have real strong concerns.

while it is important that we resolve this issue is something that would have been cheaper to do years ago, i think we will have a vote on it next week. some of us are trying to make sure that we are protecting those who did not see of benefits in the future. -- receive benefits in the future. i took my mother to a hospital visit a week and a half ago. $45 for a set of eyedrops. when you start figuring the rest of their income, that is a huge hit. anything we do has to make sure we are protecting those folks along the way. host: you sound undecided or no vote on this. guest: i am undecided. i want to see. we are part of the progressive caucus. we want to find money from the prescription drug companies. we used to be a to negotiate for prices. that went away years ago.

we want to see an exact proposal and we will advocate for what we can. host: "politico" reporting that the boehner-pelosi prescription for medicare doc fixes could come up for a vote next week. we will go to manassas virginia. independent caller. caller: good morning. i have a quick question. the congressman was talking about the military budget, that every budget -- dollar in the military would go to the military. but i know that a pack of pens costs about $10 where you can get the same pack of pens from walmart for one dollar. that is where the waste and

fraud is, i think. i don't think congress works on a monday, but why was it that congress took a week off? guest: sure. on the first priority, i agree with you. wherever we can cut waste, we should be going after that. there have been a lot of stories about expensive toilet seats and hammers that come through the military. hopefully we are being smarter about that. to the question about when we go home, one of the things is that we go back to our districts. i represent south central wisconsin and it is important for me to talk to my constituents so that i'm speaking for them in congress. what you don't want is that you live in the beltway, you never leave the beltway, and you all think like each other. generally, we are on about three

weeks and then home for a week generally. we went six weeks in a row in the house. we want to make sure we are connected to the people we represent. i would rather make sure we are actually working when we are here and getting something done. sometimes, what we actually vote on in congress is not meaningful and that should be changed. host: anthony in arizona. independent caller. caller: good morning, congressman. good morning, greta. good morning, c-span. i would like to get a couple of questions in. the capital investment in human capital. i had to travel 2500 miles to go to a family court hearing and the end result was that it got continued. i agreed to give my wife half of all of my earnings back in 2013.

that is january 1, 2013. i was 100% disabled from the military. i agreed to give her half of anything. i set that information to her attorney. that attorney refused to talk to me. since then, i have spent thousands of my military retirement money fighting this claim. i spent money going back to the east coast last week, which was very hard on my body. host: can i have you ask a question of the congressman related to that? caller: the question is, we need to know why our family court system is not putting out the effort it is supposed to to be equitable and fair. it is supposed to be expedient.

it is not. someone who has filed for divorce and is allowed to drive me through the court system for 2.5 years and then i still have to go back? guest: i think what the caller is referring to and if i could broaden the question, no matter what service in government you are working with, it should be as efficient as possible. whether it is social security and medicare or any service, from the irs to veterans affairs , we need to be as efficient and providing good customer service. i say customer service because i was a small business owner since i had hair. for a long time. that should be how we focus on serving people. we should always have that as a focus, no matter what program we are talking about. host: we go to new jersey next. paul is a democrat/ caller: thanks for taking my

call. i want to pick up on one item. c-span is very educational in some points. it really sickens me to see the waste on both sides. they go back and forth on and on and on about issues that they don't even resolve. the money we are spending. they are wasting their time to get up their scripted, like they are on a tv show getting an award. we have to get back to basics, stop fighting, stop interfering with the president with the negotiations, etc., etc. is anybody going to step up to the plate before there is a revolution in this country? guest: i could not agree with you more. think how much more frustrating it is to be working in that environment. the fact that we don't get things done. we barely get budgets done.

the fact that the speaker has to put something on the floor. i know there are a number of measures, from immigration reform to nondiscrimination in employment, that if they were put on the floor, a majority of democrats and republicans would vote on them. and yet, that does not happen. we are frustrated here. i understand why the american public is frustrated. there are plenty of people with good will who would like to get things done. if leadership does not happen from the top we are not moving the country forward. i understand why people get upset. i get frustrated being in congress that we are not figuring out how we can compromise and get something done. at the end of the day, it does not matter if you are democrat republican, or independent, you expect us to get something done and we are not under the current leadership to read host: chris you are on the air. caller: yes, good morning.

he is talking about they are going to get rid of disability social security. i have been disabled since i was 35. i've got a problem with that. you sit up there and congress and you go back to your home state, but then you go up there and you all get nothing done. john boehner, all they want to do is argue about what the president does. i think the president has done a pretty good job considering what he has gone through. host: congressman? guest: when i looked at what the president released for his budget and what you will see come from the democrats, it is more representative of what most people in the country believe. if you are hard-working and play by the rules, we should be a will to make sure you have economic security, whether it be from your retirement to your ability to send your kids to college. when you see what we do in

congress, the fact that we are not voting on some of these issues, how many times have i voted to repeal the affordable care act with no alternative proposed? it does look like we are crazy in washington. i don't blame people for thinking we are crazy. it has to happen with leadership to put these measures on the floor. the speaker has allowed this small wing of folks, these extremists really, within congress to dictate the rules. they are a minority of congress. i know people on the us traded -- other side of the aisle who get is frustrated as we do. the speaker has to put something on the floor. there is a very rarely used place called a discharge petition, last time it was done was the mccain-feingold law that went before the house. trust me, my frustration, i could be one of those collars on a daily basis. we deserve, we should be serving

the public better than how we do in congress. that comes from the leadership of the house to scheduling the bills to move things forward. host: included in the house gop budget blueprint unveiled yesterday, being marked up today, and the senate will unveil there's. the house budget includes full repeal of the affordable care act. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. i have three. i will only ask two. this gentleman that you have on air, every time that he is asked a question, he comes back with the same answer over and over. i have noticed that lately when i am listening to these channels. no one ever attacks the issue that they are calling about. what these people are asking is why, why, why? we don't get no answers. the other question i have is we were talking about immigration reform. i live in houston, texas.

i was in construction all my life. the reason i had to get out of construction was because the competition was so great because all the people that was coming across the border taking our jobs, what you are doing it right now i want to know how come all of these companies are not made to use the e-verify system? i personally know that these people doing the jobs are not legal citizens and they may not even be over here on a correct green card. i don't know. host: e-verify. congressman? guest: part of why when we don't act on immigration reform we have problems with the system. part of the problems that you raised is that employers are hiring people who they know should not be working for them because of their status. those people are not paying taxes into the system that they would if we had a reform in our

immigration system. whether it be e-verify or any of the current programs we have, we need to have something done in a comprehensive way to gain revenue from people who are working. it is billions of dollars that can come in from doing that. we have to do our jobs. we have not had a vote on immigration reform in the house. we need to have that done. the senate did their job last session. we have not done our job. we are trying to answer questions the best we can. the bottom-line is that i have more questions than answers in the budget because there is no specificity offered area did we say we are going to reduce cuts and bring in revenue, but there is nothing offered. i could have more specificity on a cocktail napkin then is offered in the republican version of the budget in what they would lower taxes on. we know from past budgets and from their comments, where those cuts are likely to be and where the tax cuts will likely go,

which is to a very small percent. if i don't have the specificity in the republican version of the budget, i can also tell you in the last budget that we know they wanted to lower the top rate to 25%. the only way you can do that is to put hard-working and the americans -- is to hurt hard-working americans in the middle class. i have some of the very same frustrations. host: mike come you are next. caller: thank you, congressman, for taking my call. i have a question about the entitlement programs. it has been said by the office of management and budget that the federal budget alone is comprised of almost 16% is entitlement programs. it seems to me if we were to cut the entire defense budget and sink that money into the federal budget, it would not come close to cutting down the national debt. at some point, we do have to do

with entitlement programs. how would you suggest that we do that? also, related, the health care costs. the rising health care costs. is there any kind of effort that we are taking to take a look at that health care cost increase to try to get our hands wrapped around that so we can control the massive amount of spending that we do? guest: i will take the second one first again. i was recently in a meeting with someone who used to be a hospital administrator who said, specifically, health care costs have largely been slashed because of the affordable care act. the provisions within the law that make sure that the increase that used to be higher than the cost of inflation has largely flattened. i think it is happening now. on the issue of entitlements, it

is your money, it is my money. it is what we pay into our paychecks. you have those programs available as a promise when you need them. we have to be wise stewards of those dollars. there will be some extra use with the aging population. i think one of the things that we should maybe look at is lifting the cap if you had the cap brought to a level from one it was that many years ago you would bring a lot new revenue into the system. high wage earners would be paying a little more, as we all do, as a percent of income. but cutting benefits from the caller earlier, that is not the answer. they paid all their life and now we are going to change the promise that they paid into four decades. being serious about it is not changing medicare as we know it,

as proposed by the republicans their budget, or their new plan for social security by getting rid of it. host: bob in pennsylvania. caller: the congressman spoke about his mother being hurt by medicare cuts proposed by republicans. i think he has diverted the truth. at the beginning of obama care $900 million was pulled out of medicare to finance obamacare. that was promulgated by the democrats, not the republicans. thank you. guest: first of all. i was talking about social security and not medicare. when someone is talking about changes to social security, that is also going to have an effect on people with lower incomes. the money specifically on the affordable care act talked to

save and cost for everyone. no one lost their medicare dollars. instead, you had the benefits of the affordable care act, which meant you could get pre-existing health care and it made health care more accessible and affordable overall hence the 16 million people who are benefiting from the program now. i think there is some misinformation that gets put out by some in congress. the reality is that the success of the affordable care act and if you were to end the per program -- the program, 16 million people could lose the very benefits that they are now having through what we have been able to do with that plan. host: we want to get a vote count on trade before you go. "the wall street journal" headlines us morning. more republicans join opposition to trade deal.

it says that 60 house republicans defect on trade and the president will have to get 32 democrats. can they count on democrats? guest: these are always very tight votes. i have been very active in opposing fast-track authority on a program we know very little about. host: you are not one of the 32. guest: no. unless they have a plan that reacts to the labor concerns, environmental concerns come all the different chapters of that trade law. i think the white house is going to have a heavy task to convince democrats that when we know the past trade deals have sent jobs

overseas, that somehow this one is different, especially since i have had a chance to read chapters previously and i will read some chapters updated to read it will be a heavy sell to do that. i think more republicans and democrats realize that our constitutional authority says we have oversight over this. if we give it up, we cannot amend it and we have limited debate we have given up our constituents' voices via our voices. i understand why we are concerned about the deals and i think the white house has a heavy lift coming up. i'm guessing it will be a tight vote, like we have seen every time. host: fast-track authority would mean congress would get an up or down vote and that would be it. we appreciate your time. coming up next, our ongoing spotlight series continues with "christian science monitor" on alternatives to locking up juveniles. ♪

>> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the featured networks. booktv. pulitzer prize-winning historian eric foner on the efforts of free blacks and white abolitionists on the efforts to free slaves. on sunday, hassan hassan on the rise and leadership of isis in the middle east. american history tv joins historians and authors that the abraham lincoln symposium. on american artifacts, a visit to the national museum of health and medicine to view items from their civil war collection. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let

us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> washington journal continues. host: on wednesday, this is our last hour, we feature recent magazine articles. today, we are taking a look at a recent piece in the "christian science monitor." "how communities are keeping kids out of crime." joining us from manchester is stacy teicher khadaroo, staff writer for the "christian science monitor" and wrote this piece. you begin by featuring a kid named trayvon.

who is he in your story and what is the story? guest: trayvon is a 16-year-old kid. he is on his basketball team his football team. he is the son of a single mom who works three jobs and cares about him so much. he is a big brother to a little boy and two sisters. in many ways, he is a typical teenager. one day, last summer, he was at boxing practice at he felt he needed to get home really quickly because he was due to babysit. his cousin was with him. his cousin said, let's rob a bike. he went along with that. in the process, he flashed a gun at the person he robbed. it turns out he was a -- it was a bb gun. the victim did not know that and was probably very frightened. he was arrested the next morning.

he is in lucas county, ohio in toledo. if there is any good place to be arrested as a youth, that might be one of them because this is a place that is actively trying to help kids get on the right path without necessarily locking them up if they don't pose a serious threat to public safety. we can talk more about how the court went through the process with trayvon and what happened with him. host: what were the options for authorities for trayvon? guest: so, they certainly had the option to imprison him locally or send him to state prison. but that is something that they try to avoid because they feel like if they can keep kids in the community and closer to the home they will have better outcomes in the long run with those kids and improve public safety in the long run by showing kids a better way and keeping them more connected to their community and to their

family and seeing families as a potential strength and asset and that redemption process. they go through a risk assessment they have developed based on research to see who is at high risk for reoffending. when the judge started looking into trayvon's background, she did hold him in detention several weeks to understand whether he was high risk or not. she just saw a gun in the report and said, we are going to hold this kid. it turns out, he had no gang affiliations. a lot of the kids who end up in prison are mixed up in gangs. he had a very stable home life school life, he was involved in sports. that kept them motivated. in their risk assessment, he was not at high risk for reoffending. they tailed ham into the youth advocate program. he was assigned a mentor who he meets with every week. the mentor met with his family,

assessed needs. he really just befriended trayvon. the biggest impact was that he learned how to make better decisions in life and he learned how to take those decisions more seriously and he got a new group of friends and he really started to trust what this mentor was telling him. that helped them improve things through his behavior. host: why did the officials in lucas county decide that this alternative was better? not just for trayvon, but better for the community, for taxpayers. guest: there has been a lot of advocacy along those lines for decades. research pointing in that direction. what they found is that at its peak in the mid-1990's, when juvenile justice facilities were bursting at the seams in toledo

they had an old facility built for 75 kids and they were over 100 in their. when they started to really look at that population they discover that they had kids make step in their sometimes who were just may be true and from school or their parents reported them as unruly or maybe they were runaways. they would get locked up for a period of time until they had a trial or until their case was resolved and they would be mixed up with murderers. they wanted to get smarter about , who is locked up and why? host: take a look at some of the statistics that was in stacy's piece. juveniles in 2011 were incarcerated. during the decade between 2001 and 2011, youth crime rate fell 31%. incarceration fell 46%. it costs $241 per day to

incarcerated juvenile. 75 dollars per day for social services to keep the child in the community. you note in the story, stacy teicher khadaroo, that there are some who think you could be jeopardizing the safety of communities by not locking up some of these juveniles. guest: certainly. there is some debate on that. it was not a very loud debate. i had to go looking for that alternative opinion. i think there is a pretty large consensus of moving in the direction, to some degree, away from lockup and serving in the community. more research is needed on what is best. the biggest advocates for public safety and the prosecutor's -- is the prosecutor's office. one prosecutor was worried that

the pendulum may be swinging too far. she cited some cases where there were felonies committed by you and they were assigned to -- youths and they were assigned to community programs. they would be monitored even at night or gps monitoring. in some cases, they did have further felonies. she was a little worried that they would be recommended to have community detention rather than be locked up for multiple offenses. she worried that the deterrent factor in her, if the threat -- factor if the threat of going to state prison was reduced to much that they would lose a deterrent factor. host: stacy teicher khadaroo taking your questions and comments about her recent story in the "christian science monitor." "keeping kids from crime."

we have divided lines a little differently this morning. parents, law enforcement, and all others. mickey is a parent in illinois. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is not a complete deterrent for any children that are getting into trouble, of course. i noticed that there are so many cities that do not have anything for kids to do. besides maybe go stealing a bike or something. i live in dixon, illinois. we have a beautiful pool that was dedicated by ronald reagan. this is his hometown, by the way. it was dedicated to the warm a more real and the 1950's. so many communities in the area

in the tri-state's, all over, they are getting rid of swimming pools. i remember when i was a kid and even my children, they had something to do. there is nothing for them to do in these towns besides to get into trouble. host: we will take that point. guest: thank you for your comment. that is one of the biggest things in these communities where they are working to reduce incarceration. they are working to partner with the community to better serve the youth. it does overlap with the prevention that you are talking about. when you talk about young offenders and wanting them to be can i do to that keeps them motivated in the community, that is a protective factor against youth crime.

they look at the preventive as well to build partnerships to address the needs of youth in the community. that is one of the biggest impressions i got when i visited toledo. this is a place where all of the adults in all of the service agencies are working together and they really care. they really care about, these are our kids. host: has there been any analysis done or is this part of the risk assessment that officials do about when crimes are committed by juveniles, when they are most get risk -- at risk for committing those crimes? after school or during economic downturns, etc.? guest: i have read a little bit about that. the peak time on school days is in the after school hours, as people might guess. on the weekends or nonschool days, it tends to be 7:00-9:00 p.m.

nobody can fully explain the rise and fall of crime rate, but economy is one of the theories that researchers look at. in the late 1980's and early 1990's, there was the crack epidemic and then there was the waning of that. they look at various societal factors to explain why crime goes up and down. depending on the laws in a given place in toledo they have a very liberal law that allows school-based arrests. that is something that the court is trying to work with the police and the schools to reduce the number of arrests happening in schools. host: johnny is calling from chicago.

caller: good morning to you guys. thank you for accepting the call. all it want to say is yes, there were a things that you can do as far as crime prevention programs and everything else out there. but then let's turn around. the young lady said something a few minutes ago and i don't care if it is black white, green, or whatever. the juvenile centers, the jails, and everything else in the united states -- privatized -- it is to make money. you always talk about it, but never explain it. host: let's talk about privatizing. stacy teicher khadaroo, is there a component of that? guest: is the color referring to privatizing prisons? host: prisons. i don't know if you discovered a privatization toward the youth programs that you featured in your story? guest: i am aware generally of

some issues with states who have pulled back sometimes from sending their youth to private facilities if there are problems in those facilities. i believe some states contract out their justice system -- it is a little bit beyond the scope of my research to answer that more than that. host: we will go to lorren, law enforcement in minnesota. caller: good morning. our biggest problem with america is we need to get back to parents raising kids. we have way too many single parents. i grew up in a family of 10. my dad was always there for us. all 10 of us turned out real good. we worked hard. they taught us to work. i just see it as too many single parents.

kids need both parents for guidance. guest: thanks for your comment. i will say that one of the things that they are doing in places like lucas county is they are trying to look at the assets around a young person. families have often been seen -- it may look like the family is the problem on the surface with young offenders, but in a lot of cases, the parents really want to help their children and they are doing their best by them. that is certainly true in trayvon's case. he had other adults in his life through extended family, i think his grandfather, he was close to , emotionally, although he was not in the community directly. they do not just want to throw up their hands and say these

are the kids of single parents and there is nothing we can do for them. if you meet the needs of the family, you are meeting the needs of the youth as well. that is part of their philosophy. they try to strengthen what is surrounding that child. host: randall is a parent in washington dc. caller: i have something that i was going to state and that simply was that i think black kids, the humanity of black kids is not looked at is the same as other kids. with all the shootings of black people nobody talks like they are human beings, they talk like in terms of public policies. the guy said something about the privatization of the prisons. what he means is that they are

sentenced to send these kids to private institutions for those institutions to be filled with people and so they can make money. the kids are a product. that is what he is saying about the private institutions. host: stacy teicher khadaroo let's talk about the first point the caller made. racial disparity. how our local law enforcement dealing with that issue in light of the reports we have seen coming out of ferguson, that more arrests were made of african-americans than of other races in those areas? guest: yes. we all are more aware now at the racial disparities in law enforcement and in prison systems in general. that is certainly something that when they started looking at their data and lucas county and other places there is a

foundation that doesn't initiative to help communities analyze their data. they look at race very closely and reducing racial disparities. sometimes, people are not even aware of it until they reduce the numbers. sometimes that can be an uncomfortable situation with the staff, but when they get to the point of realizing it is not accusing them of being personally racist, but looking at the discriminatory effects of the policies once they see that analysis, they are able to reduce the disparities. they have very strongly done so in toledo. they are still working on it. their overall reduction of youth incarceration was about or i-5 percent between 2009 and 2013. for youth of color, it went down 64%. they are trying to close that gap so that it is more fair and

how the youth are treated, so that stereotypes are not operating under the surface. that is one of the reasons they use the risk assessment tools. they use a grid to place people for the right reasons, rather than letting unconscious racial attitude stick it where people go. host: sandra in mobile, alabama. caller: good morning. how are you? why don't the churches take care of the children? and everything about the family? if they have divorce problems or anything. let the law enforcement take care of the more serious matters. they have too much to do. guest: right. certainly, into lido, they are appealing to the churches and they are working in partnership -- in toledo, they are

appealing to the churches and they are working in partnership. sometimes parents, their first resort, they may pick up the phone and call the police and say, all this child often teach them a lesson. there is a lot of learning to go on all around as we get a better understanding of what is going to best support young people. host: stacy teicher khadaroo i'll guest this morning, a staff writer would -- our guest this morning, a staff writer with the "christian science monitor." her article "keeping kids from crime." taking your calls this morning. we have divided the lines differently. you can continue to call in. we have 15 minutes left with our guest. let's talk a little bit about the history of juvenile crime. how has it changed over recent decades? guest: i think you mentioned

that it declined about 31% between 2001 and 2011. it peaked around the mid-1990's. in the late 1980's and early 1990's, there was a strong fear of what people believed to be super predator teenagers and a crime wave that was coming down the pipe. it turns out that that never actually materialized. in the meantime, there was all of this "get tough on crime" that filled adult and youth prisons. maybe this speaks to the earlier call about privatization. there have been cases of corruption that have been shown where judges and others were funneling kids into prisons because they were getting a kickback. that kind of potential for abuse has been there in the system and that is probably what pushed for

these reforms in the more recent years, with a have started to cut act on the incarceration. youth incarceration went down about 46% in the first decade of the 2000s. host: do we know why? guest: it was a combination of the decline in crime -- there is no one single explanation for that. and these efforts that are spreading across the country county by county, to consciously arrest and imprison youth less because they are realizing that it is not helping to reduce their recidivism. if anything, there is research that points to the risk of further incarceration. host: what is the federal government's involvement or role ? what about at the state level? guest: it is largely states and counties.

counties have a lot of discretion and what they do. states set laws about mandatory minimums or the age at which you can be transferred to adult court. the federal government can give incentives to states and counties to change policies and it has offered grants to reduce incarceration. the supreme court is a big part of the federal role. they have prohibited the death penalty for juvenile crime. in more recent years, they have said that you cannot mandate life in prison without parole for a crime committed under 18. you can still sentence someone to that, but it has to be based on an individual hearing and the circumstances of the case. host: back to calls. sam in spring, texas. thanks for waiting. sam, you are on the air. all right.

one last call from sam. let me move on to hope in columbia, missouri. caller: hi there. how are you? host: good morning. caller: i have been in the system. i have been abused since i was four years old. all through the system, i was in the system when i was -- until it was 15, the people who are in charge were terribly negligent. when i had been abused by a man, not only did they take me out of his custody, they gave him visitation rights. a lot of people blame things on kids. correction begins at home. everybody do not have that. i commend the lady who is the christian organization. i thank you. i try to help people as they go along in life. i am 50. it is not always the kids. it is not always something to do with someone who will listen to those kids.

for years, i cried out to help and i still ended up blessed. i have three kids, there'll educated, they are all married. i refused to give up on myself and anybody else who would fail to reach out to help me. a lot of times, people want to blame kids. you've got to listen to them. listen to the kids. host: when you say you were in the system, you were in the juvenile system? caller: oh yeah. a few times. i was not the one who caused any crime or anything. i was abused. you know? when my mother who had seven children did not know what to do , she listens to the system and when they took me, they did a horrible job. host: i'm going to have stacy jump in. stacy teicher khadaroo, go ahead. guest: thank you so much for sharing your story. i'm glad you brought this up there is a big overlap with the

foster care system and maybe you are a part of both areas i don't know. there are a lot of traumatized children who end up arrested but when you look at what has happened to them in life, you really need to address those other things. you need to address their mental health, their trauma. this is what places like lucas county understand in a way that they did not understand 15-20 years ago. there has been more research and understanding of the effects on trauma -- of trauma on youth. with that understanding, you have people shipping policy to address those things -- shifting policy to address those things. there is a very successful youth sex offender treatment program. it can be a whole different kind

of range of issues that need to be addressed. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania. eileen. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is that i have an issue with trayvon martin -- why are you using african-american children? our ancestors have been here for 500 years. you use our children as poster children when you know their counterparts are more likely to commit just as much crime, do just as much drugs. the culture of the juvenile justice system -- they do not give the sentences that they give to our children. host: i'm going to have our guest respond to you. guest: i just want to clarify. i'm not sure if you mean that we are talking about trayvon martin

when we started this segment. the name trayvon is the student that i profiled and that is not trayvon martin. it is a different trayvon with the same name. to your point of the racial disparity is, they are certainly addressed in my article. it is not that young people of color are more apt to commit crimes, but they are more apt to get arrested because of a range of fact or's that have led to this situation, where they are overrepresented in the justice system. that is what places like lucas county, ohio are trying to change that. i hope there is some sense of hope from that. i certainly take your point that these are long-standing societal issues that are at the root of this. host: if you want to read the article, you can go to the " christian science monitor" website. we will go to another parent in arlington, texas. go ahead. caller: hi. i was calling because i have

lived in big cities from brooklyn to chicago and i taught at a st. louis school. [indiscernible] i have been moving from big cities to a small town in kentucky. they are notorious for locking up their youth. no programs for them. when i was living in st. louis, there were programs that were quite similar to this program that she is speaking of to help the youth in st. louis. in small towns, rural areas in our country, there is no outlet, there is no program. they lock up their youth as the broken glass syndrome. you have these children with no economic background who will get locked up quicker and faster because of the broken glass syndrome, versus parents who

have the money to take their children through the programs. i feel like a lot of the issues are prejudged. host: ok. we will take that point. guest: yeah, i did talk to some people in rural areas, as well. there are some rural counties that are doing similar things trying to provide advocates for youth. they are trying to be fair and address the root causes of the youth behavior. we have a real patchwork quilt right now. there are a lot of advocacy organizations that are working to try to spread these new policies of how you address these issues without locking them up. host: jim in load i, ohio. you are on the air. caller: what i was going to say

is that i live probably 60 miles south of cuyahoga county. that is the biggest county in ohio. i did work up there for a number of years. i was a 20 year army career veteran. i did train a lot of young soldiers and a lot of young people. i look at it this way. if the child and the parent and how they bring them up. -- it is the child and the parent and how they bring them up. by easing any of these retributions for crimes that they commit, they are going to commit adult crimes. they'd need to face adult consequences. they are whitewashing everything. it is ridiculous. they are getting slapped on the wrist now. host: i'm going to leave it there. stacy teicher khadaroo, when do

officials believe that incarceration is the right choice? guest: yet. serious violent crimes to result in some jail time. i don't think they would describe it as a slap across the wrist. they take it seriously trying to protect the community. what they have seen in this policy that their public safety numbers are not getting worse. if anything, they are getting better under these new policies. if it was really problematic their theory is that you would start to see a slower decline or a rise in youth crime if the youth were not taking it seriously. whether they are locked up or not, they are using treatment cognitive behavior therapy, some people might call that soft. it is helping the young person understand. young people are young. they are learning how to be in the world. they are teaching them a better

way than what they may have learned in their home, in their neighborhood from a gang. they are teaching them how to get themselves out of the gang or the p pressure that would lead them down the wrong path. they are seeing that as effective crime prevention. host: rick in michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i was just thinking, i read an article this morning that stated that we should have the right to resist arrest. i thought, my god, that is the most foolish thing i have ever heard. resist arrest? that is a real clever thing. it sounds like the big problem is. pressure. someone wants to be cool. i'm not going to get arrested. i might have done something weeks ago, i'm not doing

nothing, i wasn't doing nothing. i'm chewing bubblegum, wire you hassling me? host: we will take her pressure but let me go to marion in teske. -- teskeuskegee. caller: the problem comes in is the system getting away with allowing certain people. what i mean by that our people of different color to get away with crimes, where the other ones cannot. they should have a system to check with the system to see if there is a violation of the law or in the law that the judge or anybody that is bringing the child to the system is being misused. the system, the way they have it now, it is like slavery and american government cannot get away with it. host: stacy teicher khadaroo

the first question was pressure. in the second caller, talking about having fair punishment. are there sentencing guidelines from the federal government for juveniles? guest: the federal government that is not outline for states or counties what the scented thing should be. there are certain basic constitutional protections. there are laws that are influenced by the supreme court decisions. again, this speaks to the issue of, in the old days and currently in some places, it is up to the discretion of the judge. people who are perceiving bias might very well be right in certain cases. there may be a lot of bias operating in the system. in lucas county, they are trying to consciously override any bias

by having these research-based assessment tools to decide how to treat a kid once they are in the system, that it should not just be arbitrary. over time, they are showing that that is reducing some of the gaps in the racial disparity. host: tom is a parent in iowa. i need a quick question and a quick answer. caller: yes. my quick comment is i believe the states supports. i was a single father for 10 years. my wife decided she wanted to raise them. the coined -- court gave us joint custody and for the last 10 years, the kids never came back to my house. she was in contempt. they started smoking. one ended up in juvenile. the juvenile officer did absolutely nothing. the state needs to build a juvenile center. the representatives will get

kickbacks because they are going to say, you build the juvenile system. it is an ongoing thing that spirals out of control when local government, state government gets involved. it sends their juvenile officers. their friends build juvenile detention centers. we have $130 million prison in iowa that is empty. host: we will have to leave it at your comment. if you're interested in the topic, i would encourage others to go to the "christian science monitor" website to read stacy teicher khadaroo's story. we thank you for your time. guest: thank you, greta. host: now, live coverage of the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the house will be in order. the clerk: the speaker's room,